With the eye of a digital photographer, and the skill of a webmaster:blogger I bring you Super photos,excellent video,large sound, and a fun experience. Hundreds of celebrity video and photos. Now Pinterest Share On Every Image! This Site Cell Phone Friendly

Please Share!

Saturday, October 29, 2011

I listened to a lady on one of the news
networks explain how her support for the new healthcare legislation was
almost solely based upon moral grounds. I suppose that a lot of People
feel the same way. You know the idea that it is wrong to allow some folk
to go without health insurance.

They call it Obamacare. It's name after
it's most ardent backer.

Let’s look at the moralities involved
in the health care argument as it relates to Obamacare as well as Obamacare's
aim, single payer government insurance.

If the point is that because health care
is something everyone needs, therefore we must all pay for it for everyone
else; then I have a question. Is health care any more needed than Food?
Should we all supply food to everyone else regardless of their own efforts?

You know in the Bible, the basis of the
morality for most Americans, it states that, “if anyone refuses to work,
neither should he eat.” Now according to the Bible, that is moral and
if someone would take their money to do the opposite, that would
be immoral.

What if you have 10 people and 8 of them
did all that they could to earn a living for their family and to have
money to pay the doctors who threat them, would it be moral for someone
to take their gain that they acquired from hard work and pay for the other
2 lazy people? Certainly not! To think otherwise is to say that each of
us own that which our neighbors have earned. This is socialism. This is
redistribution of wealth.

Now not everyone who lacks something
is lazy. Some are lazy but others just made different choices. Others,
like us all, are in consciously or unconsciously chosen circumstances
of the moment.

Children could grow up under similar
circumstances and one chooses to be a doctor and another just want to
have fun and enjoy life and chooses to work for themselves but just enough
to survive comfortably. Another may want to become the largest computer
manufacturer. Each may achieve their desire. Who has a right to take from
the one to give to the other? There would be absolutely no moral basis
for doing so unless your morals emanated from the ideals that brought
about the Soviet Union or Cuba which are diametrically opposed to those
of Historical Judeo-Christian Ideology.

There is a moral basis for each individual
to make an assessment of whom and when he or she must help; Knowing, at
least from a biblical perspective that they are required to make those
judgments.

Now most people should know by now that
in President Obama’s own words, he wants a single payer system and that
the law passed is a great foundation for the same. It puts the control
of the healthcare market into the hands of the Federal Government. In
the law it says more than 2000 times that the Secretary of health shall
do this or that.

It seeks to control what doctors get
paid, what insurance Companies get paid, who gets healthcare and under
what restrictions. In fact under the new law the insurance Companies have
become agents of the Federal Government. This places the Federal Government
into a position to kill the insurance companies over the years. This is
exactly what the President was caught saying in a video in the past.

The President has already begun to demonize
the insurance Companies and few people have the guts to correct him. The
insurance Companies that he spoke about that raised their insurance rates
35 to 45% didn’t mount an effective campaign to say, “Hey the State of
California dumped about 1/3 of the people that were covered by the government
on us and we had to raise our rates.” Maybe they were afraid. Maybe the
media just didn’t report it much. Either way, was what the president did,
without telling the whole truth, moral? No. The ease with which he did
it is astonishing.

Allow me to use you, MR and MS. READER
as an example:

You see people who end up at some point
in life not being able to pay for certain health care procedures and being
in need of charity to pay for them. You decide to look at certain
demographics and studies. You see only a certain number of people get
seriously sick. You figure
out the projected cost of all that care. You know that the average insurance
company makes a profit between 2.2 to 4% on all money collected.

You make an offer to the general healthy
population. You might say," 35% will get some serious condition during their
life. These conditions could cost 10s of thousand to some millions
of dollars, therefore if you and 10,000 others pay my company a certain
amount, I will guarantee that if it happens to you, we will pay for it.
Now in order for our calculations to be correct, it is necessary for you
to tell us the truth about your health and health history".

So as a Company over the years you pay
out millions. You make about 3% profit.

Now what if you are paying out hundreds
of thousands of dollars and find out that the person that you are paying
for actually had cancer when he purchased insurance from you. The person
lied to you. What do you do? To accept too much of this will destroy your
business and endanger the honest people who are also paying you. What
if some politician came around and demanded that instead of insurance
against the possibility of something happening to your clients' health
in the future, you must take all those already sick and pay their millions
of dollars cost, even if they have not paid anything in? Would it
be moral for the President to make like you have done something wrong
if he cannot show that you have? Would it be wrong for him to force
you to pay all these and not allow you to raise insurance rates enough
for the extra cost? If he restricts you enough, your days as the insurer
will be numbered. To stay afloat you will go along with the government
which now controls you and will regulate to give even less treatment to
spread the care around.

In fact, the system has you by the throat
and will have morphed into the government option with the added effect
of over time putting as many of the insurance companies out of business
as it chooses.

Our President therefore has been immoral
in this matter. It is not that insurance companies have never done wrong,
but that he accused all and did not tell the TRUTH about preconditions
and their relationship to real insurance. Insurance is made against the
possibility of bad health in the future and not a welfare system that
it will become. He has made others to support him in this deception. That
is immoral.

Is it moral to claim that even universal
care takes care of everyone? It is moral only if the statement is true.
Before we look at other immoralities that are involved with single payer
and other socialist health contraptions, let’s look at the system that
we still have but are moving away from.

In the Old Testament the poor were considered
the responsibility of each individual as his conscience dictated. Farmers
for instance, were not to harvest the last corners of their fields but
to leave that for the poor. It was kind of a safety net, which is the
like model to our system before the new law started taking us away from
it. Of course the people were free and also encouraged to give help to
an organization or individuals as they saw fit.

This made certain that each person understood
that they only had a RIGHT to reap what they sowed and their well being
was first and foremost their own responsibility. This is the modern idea
of teaching people to fish as oppose to constantly feeding them and thereby
harming them, which would be immoral.

In our health care system that the Obama
administration has set on a path of altering from the Old Testament model,
anyone needing health care can get it. They can get it quickly.They get
by and large the same treatments that the rich would receive. The treatment
for cancer is the treatment for cancer.

In a single payer system or even a hybrid
system on it’s way to single payer, there will be problems that absolutely
everybody should already know about. There are all sorts of documentation
from countries which are trying these things. Let’s look at some and see
just how moral those types of systems are.

1. Contrary to our present system where
everyone can get timely treatment, in government controlled health systems,
this is not the case. In fact, we know that in the systems that exist,
long lines and delayed coverage means that the health treatment is not
timely. In some cases people die. They traded health care just to replace
it with health insurance. Is this moral? For those people who know what
is happening every where that this is tried, yes it would be immoral to
wish this on anyone. Many of those who don’t know it don’t wish to know.
The facts are there. Their belief in a Socialist theorical model
that makes everyone equal, even if worse off, is appealing to them.

As was pointed out by By David Hogberg
in an article entitled “The Myths of
Single-Payer Health Care”

“Media in foreign nations are full of
stories about people suffering while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane
Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart
attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her
cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to
have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost
50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation
to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting
over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in
Western Australia.

These are not mere anecdotes. Much
academic literature has examined the impact of waiting lists on health.
A study in
the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50 people died while
on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario. A study of
Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery found that the "risk
of death increases significantly with waiting time." In a 2000 article in
the journal Clinical Oncology, British researchers studying 29 lung cancer
patients waiting for treatment further found that about 20 percent "of
potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list."

In fact a friend of mine in Canada,
whose wife has been suffering from severe cancer called me from Zurich.
He had to leave a serious business adventure to go back to Canada faster
than he had expected. What he said was unforgettable, “I have to get herto
a private doctor. Here the wait in the health system in Canada will take
another 9 months and she will be dead then!” In the US, she would have
been treated almost immediately.

2. Is it moral if 80% of healthcare cost
is from the 20% who need catastrophic care? These include the elderly
and those with very serious conditions like cancer. These are the first
to die because of the delays cause by an unnecessary system? There is
no reason that this must be other than giving more power to bureaucrats
and making some feel that there is an equality of treatment. To choose
to inadvertently kill off the 20 percent of the very sick to make
the 70% happy and save money is immoral.

The Five year survival rate for American
women with breast cancer is 83.9%. The rate in Great Britain is 69.7.
The five year survival rate in American men for prostate cancer is 91.9.
It is 73.7% in France and 51.1% in Great Britain. Men and women with colon
cancer is 35% more likely to survive in the United States.

Morality is not as the President is known
to have said about some severely sick elderly that, “Maybe they should
just take a pill.” I am not saying that the President and others know
that they are wrong. I am saying that it is immoral for those that know
these facts and there is no reason why they shouldn't know.

3. Is it moral to tell people we must
put everyone under this system because it will be cheaper to cover an
extra 30 million more people with insurance than is covered now, without
rationing? How could it logically become cheaper? How could this not cause
rationing like it has everywhere else? How could anyone who know these
facts live with themselves? How can they do this and leave out 15 million
people that are not covered under the new law, if they believe that it
is immoral to leave people uncovered?

4. All these systems, as has been shown
by various studies stifle innovations that save lives and the quality
of health for all. From whom are these facts hidden? The information
is publically available. Is it moral to hide your eyes and do harm in
the name of doing well?

When you demonize the profit as being
a motivation for doing evil instead of good, you resign yourself to the
belief that most things accomplished

are from altruism. This is never more
than a false assumption. The failure to understand this is the main reason
for the failure of socialism. Even the person who believes God exist must
next believe that he is a rewarder of those that seek to please him or
they will do nothing of the sort.

If you take time to look at the early
history of this country, you may be surprised by the number of experiments
into socialism. There were many dozens of societies of about 1600
to 2500 people or more trying varying degrees of socialism. Some went
so far as to have all things in common, even the husbands and wives. That
is every man was the husband of all women and every woman was the wife
of all men. Most of this happened before 1850. Some of the leaders were
extremely popular on both sides of the ocean BUT THEY ALL FAILED.

Most of those people, like the well meaning
people today who want single Payer, including the President, suffered
from an inability to see straight. What is disconcerting is that no amount
of evidence shown turns many of them from this delusion. This begs the
question, is helping people the real reason that they want to do this?

For the first time in the history of
this country the Federal Government demands that you buy a commodity.
This is a violation of the fundamental concept of the freedom passed on
to us from the founding fathers. Yet there are those that it seeks to
exempt from various sections of the mandates. These exemptions go to those
who are supporters of the democrat party.

Therefore, not only are the concepts
involved fraught with immoral judgments but the result of its provisions
promotes immoral dealings and effects immoral outcomes. So, if I
see another person sitting still as the supporters of this legal error,
spout its propaganda of being moral, I will have reason to mark that person
sitting still as someone just trying to benefit from public backlash.
That person certainly will not have understood the matter nor perceived
the foundations of true morality.

Thanks Jan that is exactly what I attempted to do. I think so many people have not thought this health care change through. They actually think it will be better fo everyone. It may appear to some to be better but it will cause the death of many others when it is just almost fully implemented. Then there is a little thing called Freedom. Americans are the most particular people in the world about freedom and we should be. The people who want tofundamentally change our country know what they are doing. A lot of their followers don't know what they are really up to.

Bill, this is such a well written blog I hate to comment in disagreement. but I must. The Declaration of Indepence clearly states that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable right, and included among these rights is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For some the pursuit of happiness is directly linked to their health, and to others it equals income. I have worked in the medical industry as an echocardiographer for twenty years and for many those two liberties are tied together. I have seen many lose their homes, due to a birth of a sick child. How can that be morality, when a family has no where to take their child after they have given everything they have to see them through the healing process. I also know that doctors reimbursements are already controlled by insurance companies, and doctors along with hospitals must in advance agree to accept what the insurance companies pay in order to be providers. Doctors and hospitasl are given a choice in advance.

| 3/28/2010 8:52:17 PM

Colette, I think you are a little confused. Life comes from God and All are free to pursue happiness. That doesn't means that wehave the right to demand happiness from others. Colette, you can run out of food or any other commodity, but no one has a right to come to yourhouse or gointo your wallet and steal from you to help someone else. They take away your right. Now you have the right to give everything you have away. and America is the most giving country in the world. You must not have read my blog at all if you think all those immoralities are ok, just so your feelings of good will to steal from others becomes the right thing to do. I think you need to reread my blog and this time consider what I have said point by point. I don't know even one that is wrong.

| 3/28/2010 10:05:06 PM

If they don't want to do business with certain insurance companies than they don't have to. When Medicare was first initiated, the medical community was starkly against it, and now most all doctors accept it. Many currently in the health care industry are solely dependent on jobs that in a sense medicare has created. And, I imagine with the addition of so many people into health care reform many new jobs will be created. Yes there are things in the bill that many will be in disagreement with, but one thing we must be in agreement with here in the United States and that is... morally, we are obligated to care for our own. We all have inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

| 3/28/2010 9:07:09 PM

Wrong again about medicare. Most Doctors hate it, because it does not pay them their full cost. Medicare turns down more people than private health insurance providers. In fact they turn down twice as many. Colette, if there were 2 systems: 1 system helped save the life of 90 of of 100 seriously ill people and the other system helped save the life of 70 out of a 100 seriously ill people. If the first system was free market system and the second a socialist system Which would you choose? Could you answer that, please. Because that is what my blog is about. It proves how the world's socialist healthcare systems kills people. My question to all who love single payer is why they claim to want to help people so badly but chooses the socialist system even if it means that have to kill some people to do it? There must be a reason even if it makes no sense.

| 3/28/2010 10:20:41 PM

One last point Colette, lest you continue to some how think that because some of us do not want socialise healthcare it means that we don't want any change. We do. We would like a truly Free market system, which we have not had in many years. Read my other blogs about health care and you could see the type of thing that I would like to see. But short of getting what I want that would lower cost and make health care more personally controlled, all congres had to do to get insurance coverage for preconditions, is to make it against the law t turn someone down....COST NOTHING...not a trillion dollars.....even if they had added 30 million on medicare, itwould have cost maybe another 100 billion not a trillion. No my friend they are doing something else. They want the power to control men and women and their money. They want to take away my rigt to pursue what I want for happiness, to pursue the happiness of themselves and those that support them. I mean people in power.

| 3/28/2010 10:31:18 PM

Exec blog I agree..this healthcare will also give the IRS complete control over your bank acct. ...is this moral....many small business owners will have to close shop due to the increase in cost....is this moral...many Demi senators were ask the day after it was signed about different items in the bill....they didn't have a clue about what was in it...but they voted for it knowing that a vast majority of the American ppl didn't want it....was that moral...and Colette is right ...we do have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness......this takes our liberty away....and the persuit of happiness is just what it says the persuit...not a given right to it...the doc and hospitals will be limited to what they can charge....there will be long lines waiting and not enough ppl working so you will forfit your breaks and work on twice as many ppl in a day..I am a nurse and my hospital staff has already been cut.due to lack of state funds..12 hr shifts no breaks..it will get worse.

| 3/28/2010 11:19:35 PM

You go girl! Don't forget they are also making your medical records much more available that ever before. This has been a area that People have fought to keep private for generations. Unfortunately the people who supported BHO did not understand that to fundamentally change something means that you will change the very foundations which holds it up. Watch out.....

Many business owners have already closed shop due to the recession. More than I can count here in washington. The policies of George Bush have done more damage than any other president in recent history. That has become a historical fact.

Life and death choices are made everyday. Morality is not an issue-any more than our CHOICE to go to war over and over. Doctors let some die-so that others may live-simple choice. Rangling over a system that hasn't even started yet is silly. Good or bad at this point is moot- The biggest GOOD THING no turn downs for pre existing conditions Something cancer survivors,Hotchkiss disease survivors and a million other diseases will cheer about! When your insurance drops you-because you are no longer an equitable risk-you will be happy. Something which happens everyday. Stop whining about change-its going to happen even if you don't like it. Give things a chance-then fix it if it's flawed. http://garygraefen.blogspot.com

From Bill Actually what you are saying is silly! Although I defend you right to say it. It is a mighty dumb person that does not set down and count the cost of what he plans to do...I tell you as I have pointed many have not counted the cost...many other have counted the cost. I am one that has and point out the information to others. Sorry you argument doesn't hold water...If it has been proven a system litterally kills people and a much greater than another (As I pointed out in the article) Why would someone intentionally choose the killer. But I tell you this it is always the case in socialism, people love the system more than they do the people, therefore it is a road we need to stay away from..

hi bill, obviously you are passionate about health care reform. But it has already passed. Debate is fine about its merits. But I would appreciate it if you would reply here on the blog. People who visit my profile havn't the faintest Idea what you are talking about. Time will tell how good or bad it is. I do not feel that health care changes are socialist. There has been no reduction of the right to buy private insurance. Anyone who chooses to do so still can. Socialism is a form of government-not a voted on bill which has to do with the options available. The health care bill could be repealed or modified later. That is about as democratic as it gets if you ask me-nothing is in stone.

Makes little difference wither you feel it is socialist or not. Its about wither the market is free flowing or some group of government bureaucrats seeks to control most or all aspects of healthcare. There is no question about it. Every major figure in Obama's life has been about socialism and he himself has said that what he is doing is spreading the wealth around. That is socialism, which never works well for the individual. Maybe you should reread my blog. If you don't see the difference between freemarket and socialism after doing so the second time, then I know we can never agree. I have rarely seen anything that changes a socialist. You see it is NEVER really abou the people with them. They will always throw them under the buss. I suggest you read again , follow the links, CHECK OUT THE FACTS, NOT THE FEELINGS!

Obama was a democratically elected president, I don't think he is any more socialist than FDR,Clinton, or Jimmy Carter. This propensity to call any social change, system change, or even taxation, socialist-is fear mongering. Something republicans seem to have no trouble doing. Rush Limbaugh promised to leave-he didn't. Reality-when I am of retirement age I will be stuck with only my social security. I will at least have something. Social Security was called socialism to. But even if it is-It beats me sticking some rich guy with a knife for his wallet, because I am starving to death. The wonderful true capitalists, like bankers. Have wrought the worst economic recession since the great depression. Greed and unregulated systems have left millions to loss of their homes,their futures, and their jobs. I as an individual am more concerned about all the loss of human life from being in two wars at once. Something which offends my morality. Damn the Military Industrial complex-owned by banks

I Enjoyed reading your blog . I Dont listen to all the talk about this subject because its Confusing but your blog is well written . I Think we should take care of the elders and women with children . but the women that are taken care of should be informed not to make it a habit of having children for us to take care of. I Dont have insurance myself nor would I Ever take a goverment plan . I pay my own way and only when needed or die . lol

Sorry Bill But When Bible meets Health Care we must address the Problem with Women having babies and dead beat Dads not taken care of their offspring . Not so much of just lazy folks ... but more with how they was raised wanting it handed to them .. lol Sorry and that was awesome if you dont work you dont eat . but women have to stay at home with the children and the deadbeats are not around. so warn her once then kick her off the free health care... had this been done we would not be in a mess.

There has always been deadbeats and women that have kids out of wedlock. My goodness, read the history of the middle Ages. A free Market system that leaves what the Bible calls gleanings for the poor is the proper way to handle it. Along with the charities freely given by individuals. So if a majority in a society decides that they will leave a portion for the poor, it is good, even if done today in the form of taxes. Though men often think they know better ways, none that I know of have worked better that the PRINCIPLE expressed in that Old Testament advice. As far as deadbeat Dads and Moms, that is another story that I could write about. The Government agencies are corrupt which deal with this and are to a large degree set up to collect money instead of helping to get people on their feet.

As A Republican I Do think we should take care of Our Own !! Own Family , Not Every Tom , Dick And Harrys !! At the Rate we are going Gary Can Kiss his Social Security Good Bye . Oh What A Mess Bill !!

I disagree with your stand and I feel your are being misled. During the Bush administration, Bush and his buddies had a little club they called 'The Top Hat Club' -- based on the top hat in the Monopoly game. They played with our economy like their own personal Monopoly game, and we had a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Now, one thing I noticed when I played that game as a child is that once one person started winning, it was nearly impossible to turn it around. Only one person wound up with all the money, and everyone else was bankrupt. Game over! That is what happened with our country. Game over! The wealthy won! Now unless the kid who's sitting there chortling over all his paper money wants to lose all his friends, who are going home very ticked off, he has to redistribute the money and start the game over. Too bad in reality, not the game, people die when the game is over, instead of just go home and leave the greedy kid to play with his paper money alone.

I wonder where you got that from. Were you sitting in the meetings where they plotted to cotrol the marketplace? Of course not. You know nothing about the market place. Here is a quick lesson. If any President push legislation to allow all people to keep more of their own money and to allow them to make their own decisions. THAT MAKES CERTAIN that no one man or group of men can control the economy. Millions of people making millions of decisions .....BUSH ON THE OTHER HAND. Any President that seeks to take over banks, and businesses and set rules that determine who they can sell to , what they can sell and how they can sell is the one that is trying to control the marketplace. Health care, Cap and trade, Bank take overs etc.....that's OBAMA There is NO ARGUMENT with logical Honest people that this is what generally has happened. Even Obama, accused President Bush of allowing the free market too much lattitude... So what I say here is clear to those who want to know.

Now I understand that those who are in love with Obama because he is Black or because he speaks great swelling words that they don't understand, I CAN'T LIKELY HELP THEM. They likely believe in the same marxism he does. He told people before he was elected 1. that the constitution was deficient and it should have told what government could do to /for the people. 2. Wants to reset Foundations on which the nation stands. 3. Wants to lean toward marxism, with redistribution of wealth. 4. Spread wealth to other pars of the world, Cap and trade. 5. Decide who lives and who dies, via universal healthcare. And now all they things he said health care would do, it is doing theopposite. 1. healthcare is higher. 2. Fewer has insurance 3. More in poverty than last 50 years. 4. Unemployment higher that he said it would go. 5.Marketplace confused and not producing jobs. 6.Desparaging the USA while uplifting Molsems And much more that I should not have to mention. Its in our face.

If you think W cares about you, you should see the video of him standing in front of one of his fund-raising groups, saying 'What we have here are the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.' He called Kerry an elite? Hypocrite. George W. Bush is a fantastic manipulator and he doesn't have a heart for anyone but his wealthy buddies. They are the reason this economy went bust. They de-regulated the banks so they could get 'too big to fail.' Obama did nothing but continue what Bush set in motion because he had no choice. The foxes were already running the henhouse and nearly all the hens were slaughtered already. Your original article is about morality. I find it disturbing when people hearken back to the Old Testament in contradiction to what Christ Yahshua (Jesus) demonstrated with his life with such infinite love. He did not charge for his healing work, did he? Neither do I. Insurance companies should not be in charge of healthca

Here's another example of how the GOP operates, and what they really think of all of us poor people. I seriously doubt that the majority of the people here on Yuwie, spending so much time trying to build pennies into dollars, qualify as wealthy by GOP standards. 'John Snow won't have to worry about his retirement. When he left the csx railroad to become George W. Bush's second treasury secretary, he took with him a $2.5 million annual pension. The figure was based on 44 years of employment at csx, never mind that Snow had been there for only 25 (during which, incidentally, he brutally cut safety and maintenance, to the point where a jury awarded a widow $50 million in punitive damages after a derailment—money paid by the taxpayers because of a little-known law that insulated Snow and his company from the costs of his egregious judgment). That kind of boost is unheard of for the rank and file, but not at all uncommon for corporate executives and owners.' May/June 2009 Mother Jone

Oh Please, be an honest adult. If you really cared about mis-spent money, you should be up and SHOUTING about all the tax cheats that Obama has appointed to his group of advisors. or the 10s of million by his buddies. The big scandle is How The Bush Administration tried for 5 years leading up to the market crash of 2008, to tell people that the realestate market through Fanny and Freddie could cause that very thing. Media didn't cover it , except for C-SPAN. Barney Frank, Chris Dod, Obama, and the Black Caucus accused that Administration of wanting to hurt blacks and the poor. People like Obama with Acorn, had long pushed banks to extend themselves by giving out loans that they should not have. YES IT WAS GOVERNMENT and LIBERALS who forced Banks to do that...The Truth is not being told. There are C-SPAN clips showing this, go educate yourself about this matter. I could care less about what Party a person is in, but I will tell the truth BASED ON FACTS, not emotions.

Honestly, I have been trying very hard to get away from politics and simply focus on my ministry, but when I see the lies and manipulation that are rearing their ugly heads, I have to speak up. Truth is extremely hard to come by these days. What someone believes is true depends on whether they watch Fox news or MSNBC. I chose to vote based on what I received from Spirit in prayer. God does answer prayer, if you sit down and create an agreement with Him what you understand to be 'yes' and 'no,' and you commit obey what you receive. What I got was that if McCain was elected, we would have either a 3rd war, or WWIII, I can't safely interpret either way. If Obama was elected, I was given a sign for 'depression' or 'grief' -- at the time I took this to mean he would be assassinated. But a month after that, the banks made their move, in October of 2009, and called in their chips. It was inevitable. Not his fault. But it was the better choice -- WWIII is game over.